[gentoo-dev] Re: New categories: mate-base and mate-extra
Tom Wijsman posted on Sat, 22 Feb 2014 18:08:24 +0100 as excerpted: That seems a little on the small side? Can we just do a single category for all of it, instead? People can go bikeshed on the name. TL;DR: Yes, we could try that; but what would be a consistent name? mate-desktop ? (The mate-base and mate-extra split seems more consistent with the rest of the tree to me, and around a dozen packages each seems fine, but if it's to be a single category, mate-desktop seems reasonable. Or desktop- mate, or mate-dt...) Regardless, thanks for bringing mate to gentoo. =:^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New categories: mate-base and mate-extra
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 17:33:57 + (UTC) Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: Tom Wijsman posted on Sat, 22 Feb 2014 18:08:24 +0100 as excerpted: That seems a little on the small side? Can we just do a single category for all of it, instead? People can go bikeshed on the name. TL;DR: Yes, we could try that; but what would be a consistent name? mate-desktop ? While still inconsistent with what already exists, that indeed sounds sane towards the user, +1; does someone object 'mate-desktop'? (The mate-base and mate-extra split seems more consistent with the rest of the tree to me, and around a dozen packages each seems fine, but if it's to be a single category, mate-desktop seems reasonable. Or desktop- mate, or mate-dt...) (Or do we want a consistent 'mate-base' / 'mate-extra' approach?) -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
[gentoo-dev] Re: New categories: mate-base and mate-extra
On 02/23/2014 05:02 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 17:33:57 + (UTC) Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: Tom Wijsman posted on Sat, 22 Feb 2014 18:08:24 +0100 as excerpted: That seems a little on the small side? Can we just do a single category for all of it, instead? People can go bikeshed on the name. TL;DR: Yes, we could try that; but what would be a consistent name? mate-desktop ? While still inconsistent with what already exists, that indeed sounds sane towards the user, +1; does someone object 'mate-desktop'? (The mate-base and mate-extra split seems more consistent with the rest of the tree to me, and around a dozen packages each seems fine, but if it's to be a single category, mate-desktop seems reasonable. Or desktop- mate, or mate-dt...) (Or do we want a consistent 'mate-base' / 'mate-extra' approach?) I personally prefer the base/extra approach for consistency and segregation reasons.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New categories: mate-base and mate-extra
Am Samstag, 22. Februar 2014, 19:02:54 schrieb Tom Wijsman: On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 17:33:57 + (UTC) (Or do we want a consistent 'mate-base' / 'mate-extra' approach?) If there is a clear distinction between a core set of packages and extra stuff (as in e.g. kde4), the combination mate-base / mate-extra would probably be best. -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer (council, kde) dilfri...@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/
[gentoo-dev] Re: new categories:
Denis Dupeyron wrote: On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:47 AM, George Shapovalov geo...@gentoo.org wrote: Besides, in my opinion, the ability to see what's there in at least minimally categorized way without having to resort to using some special tools or going to some website is worht something. In this vain I was proposing going the opposite direction - to allow arbitrary nesting of categories, like going sci-math - sci/math and deeper (then packages would naturally be specified by FQEN - fully qualified ebuild names). Its not like tree walker would be the most complex part of code in portage.. Actually we'd want both tags and nesting. They don't address the same issue. Arbitrary nesting of categories allows better management and storing of ebuilds. It could also allow a meta-ebuild to depend on a whole subcategory to ease maintenance of said meta-ebuild. It's more a developer's feature. That sounds very similar to sets? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious, but I thought sets were used with kde4; if they are unavailable to the ebuild author, perhaps a suitably-defined extension (for in-tree sets) might be useful? The obvious advantage being that they are not tied to a specific category, ofc; could you expand a bit on 'better management and storing'? Tags allow ebuilds to appear as being pertinent to more (sub-)categories than just the one they're stored into. It may help some of us locate packages they need in a better and/or faster way. It's more of a user's feature. Tags sound cool. I'm opposed to losing the current single flat category schema, fwtw, unless it enables something majorly-useful. It's *way* better than other distros (I am deadset against losing all categorisation) and still nice and immediate.
